The †roll Cave ®™

Off-topic
#715

Thats one example out of the dozens of wars the U.S has been in. The U.S won almost every single battle in the Vietnam war they would hold the ground until the enemy was defeated. Then they would leave and the next day the Viet Cong or north Vietnames army would just occupy the ground that the U.S left. Or if the battle seemed hopeless they left. There has been very few “last stands” in U.S military history. The few i could name were vital to the war effort. 101st airborne at Bastogne. A group of cooks held the line against overwhelming number of Germans during the battle of the bulge. The Alamo ect all these “last stand” type battles were important to the war and leaving the ground would have been a bad move in these cases.

You really seem to have something against U.S troops did they do something to you to that makes you hate them? :smile:

#716

From everything that I read about how UK was pulled into the Iraq war, it seems the only thought the Brits have nowadays is “the US is leading the way so they surely have a plan, let’s follow”.

#717

9beab9cec91c7b89.png1265×533

lelz

#718

the british and americans operate to a separate plan , the way the two nations operate are miles apart , always have been , the americans like to steam role , the British do not.

helmend was a british battle and british planned . the reason you have the view you do is because the US dominate the media so most of the stories that come out are from a US point of view and make it seem like its all the US when in fact the real picture is very different .

every nation operates differently and has its own style . yes the end goal is the same but the route is not

#719

this is what i mean , you won the battles but you lost the war because you chose to dig in and battle for hours when what you should be doing against such a force is light forces and quick attacks .

the longer you stay in a position the more enemy combatants are brought into the fight .
the taliban love it , the moment a firefight kicks off for any longer than a few hours you end up watching mini buses of the wankers coming from all over . hence why we resort to CAS support as soon as it gets heavy to end the fight quick and move on

#720

Well obviously digging in won the battles so why should they have done things differently. The United States lost the war because casualties were much higher than expected. It was hyped up to be this easy war and when it ended up being tougher than expected all the pot smoking liberal jackasses started protesting everyday. Some even bombed government buildings. The bombing runs of the 1970s were devastating to the Vietnamese and things were looking up. But the media was reporting that a large offensive by the North and Viet cong was impossible. But they did make the attack during the Tet holiday and it was a crushing defeat for the north and a victory for the American and south Vietnamese forces. But since the media was saying a large offensive like that was impossible people panicked instead of celebrating the victory. Vietnam was a political failure not a military one. 50,000 U.S troops lost their lives in Vietnam and over 2 million vietnamese soliders/viet cong were killed.

Funny you brought that up usually the people from the U.K say the “the U.S sucks and couldn’t beat the Taliban or Iraq” Then i proceed to tell them that the U.K was part of both those wars and they deny it. Im serious if i had a dollar for every person ive talked to from the U.K who didn’t know they were involved with Iraq or Afghanistan i would be a millionaire.

#721

because you lost the war by becoming too focused on a single battle . the vietcong only had to injury the troops to put them out of action . wars are not won on a "kill to death ratio " basis , its not call of duty , its won on sacrificing in the right areas . losing 20 men holding a worthless village just so you can go "well we beat them in that battle " is stupid , in war fighting terms its better to lose 100 men holding a strategic valued area.

the vietcong knew that if they kept fighting you over shitty villages they would lose the battles however as long as you lost a few blokes or a few got wounded it didnt matter because the US public wouldnt care all they would care about is why 10 US marines are dead over a mud shack. so the vietcong were looking at the bigger picture of how to actually beat you

#722

The war was not lost the U.S pulled out because of the American public. Had the public been as patriotic and supportive as the world war 2 generation then the United States would have never pulled out.

The Vietcong was completely devastated after the Tet offensive. The North Vietnamese wanted this because they didn’t want a powerful guerrilla force behind them when they invaded the south. Had the United States stayed in the war for a year or two longer the north would have been defeated. Everytime they fought the United States in a battle they were crushed. The viet cong were slightly more successful because of Guerrilla tactics.

So the amount of enemy killed has nothing to do with the war? Hmm thats strange if you have no men left but you control all the strategic areas whats stopping the enemy from just taking them? Im sorry if you’re only killing 50,000 of them for every 2 MILLION they kill of you then you’re not wining the war.

#723

so you lost , sugar coat it however you like , you goal was to stop the communists taking power and you failed , its a defeat .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:722, topic:21032”]
The Vietcong was completely devastated after the Tet offensive. The North Vietnamese wanted this because they didn’t want a powerful guerrilla force behind them when they invaded the south. Had the United States stayed in the war for a year or two longer the north would have been defeated. Everytime they fought the United States in a battle they were crushed. The viet cong were slightly more successful because of Guerrilla tactics.
[/quote] but there tactics worked and they won .

correct its irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because they were able to lose that amount and still win . how many you kill is irrelevant whats relevant is achieving mission success , if that means losing 3 times or more the amount you kill then so be it .

#724

germany lost 9 million men on the eastern from MIA/KIA and russia lost 17 MILLION troops , would you say germany won the war ?

of course you wouldnt , so numbers are irreverent , thats all they’re numbers . the vietcong could afford to lose 2 million you couldnt afford to lose 50,000

1 Like
#725

Military wise no. The goal was to slowly withdraw American troops and let the Vietnamese fight it out. Which is exactly what the U.S did. It was a defeat at the hands of the American public.

They never defeated the U.S military never captured any important strategic places. When ever they fought U.S troops in a battle head to head they got utterly destroyed even when they had weapons and armor from the Soviets and Chinese.

They never defeated the U.S military like i said above. The Viet Cong was decimated after the Tet offensive and could not mount any proper attack for a long time. The North was pretty badly beat up too. The Tet offensive was a victory for America not a defeat. But since the media claimed the Viet cong couldn’t make a large attack like that it freaked the American public out even thought it was a victory. As soon as the U.S left they easily beat South Vietnam but had America still been there they wouldn’t have had a chance to take on the south.

Russia could afford those losses.They had an absurdly large army. The Vietcong and North Vietnamese could not. Like i said they were decimated after the Tet offensive.

The Viet cong were also Guerrillas and they were losing tons of men when they already had a small force at hand. They couldn’t afford these losses. Basically if the media hadn’t have been making bullshit predictions and if the American public wasn’t made up of stoned hippies who wanted “world peace” then Vietnam would be very different today. But honestly if you think about it its almost a good thing the south lost and America pulled out. There were quite a few people in
Washington with nuclear erections who wanted to drop several nukes on nam. This could have started a nuclear war and then everyone would be dead.

Napalm looks cool.

#726

lol i just stumbled upon this and found it amusing. Its the Chinese rover on display and has an interesting background…

#727

you completely miss the entire point ,
ill simplify my point .

the vietcong could afford and were willing to lose that amount of men , if they were not able to lose such amounts of men they would have lost the war but they did not instead they won by causing horrific injuries upon us troops , knowing that images of these injuries would spread across the US like wildfire and people would turn against the idea of the war .
the idea of a guerilla struggle is not to decimate your opponent but rather make victory so expensive its not worth it . much like the revolutionary war .
the vietcong were defending there only objective war to make you withdraw from vietnarm so they could take power and they succeeded so they won the war , they held the US off long enough for the us population to reach breaking point and say enough is enough .

#728

napalm is a evil evil weapon

#729

The Viet Cong DID lose. Have you read anything ive said. They were unable to continue fighting after the Tet offensive because they had lost far to many men mean while the Americans lot very few. The North Vietnamese army faired better but they still took months to recover from the crushing defeat. The Vietnamese did not defeat the American military the American public did. The media had been saying that the Viet cong was unable to stage such a large offensive and they were wrong so people freaked out. Had the media been saying that it was probable that the Viet cong would attack on the Tet holiday then it would have been a huge moral boost for the American public when they destroyed the Viet cong instead of a major decline in moral. The United States were simply repelling invasions from the north and dealing with the Viet cong. People seem to have this idea that the U.S military failed invading the north and that Viet cong won and all this other nonsense.

The revolutionary war wasn’t really as much about Guerrillas as the “Patriot” makes it seem. they played a smaller role in the south and that was about it. Almost all the battles won by the Continentals were won on the open field.

They didn’t succeed the American media and public did. Im getting a little sick of reapeating my self so you’ll just have to read what i said above. Had the media kept their mouths shut and didn’t make bullshit predictions things would have been different. I will hand it to the Vietnames the did hold out against a full blown invasion from China and they managed to get hippies to start crying in the U.S.

Meh no more cruel than other fire weapons. And that doesn’t change the fact that it looks cool.

Pretty much the moral of the story is fuck hippies. :smiley:
If anyone beat the U.S government it was the media and hippies. They did far more damage to the war effort then the Viet cong ever came close to doing. All that bullshit peace and love crap. If there was one period of time i could erase from this world it would be the 60s.

If you want to hold an embarrassing military defeat over the U.S head look into the war on the Seminoles. Bunch of damn dirty swamp indians :stuck_out_tongue: that were never defeated but they would wipe out huge numbers of U.S troops by ambushing them in the swamps of Florida.

#730

and they lost how ? histroy says they won as they were never defeated and you pulled out

#731

yes that called guerilla warfare , make it brutal and turn the american public against the war , the vietcong achieved there war objectives the US did not .

a simple question for you now .

the 50,000 us troops that died , what did their deaths achieve ?
2 million dead enemy , what did their deaths achieve ?

#732

see you’re fixated on numbers dictating a war out come , they are worthless , they do not show any picture at all .

following an operation the questions normally come in this order

  1. did we achieve our objective
  2. are we prepared to defend the objective
  3. what casualties were taken .

another example is when making an assault on a well fortified position or any position for that matter the rule is you attack with a force 3 times the size as the defending due to the fact that the attacking force is expected to take more losses than the defending force .
the objective is to take the position not kill more than you lose

the objective could be anything in the vietcong’s case it was to damage US moral so much they would lose the will to fight . they achieved that objective so the casualties substantiated are irrelevant

#733

Where does history say they won? They never defeated the U.S military and the NVA were the ones who defeated the South Vietnamese army. The NVA did not want the Viet cong strong when they invaded the south. The treaty of Paris ensured a ceasefire between the North and South. When they did that the U.S pulled out. A few months later the NVA invaded the south. The U.S public did not want to go back in at that point.

The Viet cong did absolutely not achieve their objectives. The NVA cut support for them after the Ceasefire. The Viet cong never had control over the souths government. You make it sound like the beat the U.S and they left. When in reality both sides agreed to peace. Once the north saw the U.S had left they started the war back up again and the American public did not want to go back in. The U.S did achieve their objectives. They left Vietnamin peace and it was its own country. Then when the U.S was gone the North broke the peace treaty.

50,000 U.S troops died so that the South could be its own country. Peace was achieved and their deaths were not meaningless for a few months. When the U.S left the North declared war on the South.
2 million Vietnamese died so they could live under an oppressive communist government.

Yes the Seminoles killed all the U.S troops who came on their land while losing very few of their own i would say they were successful wouldn’t you? They completed their objectives.

#734

SO YOU LOST ! your war objective was to free vietnarm of communism ! you failed communism took power so the commies won and the us lost

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz